CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 décembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 22 December 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 61045/21 Péter JAKAB against Hungary lodged on 19 November 2021 communicated on 1 December 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is an opposition member of Parliament. The application concerns the decision of the Speaker to turn off his microphone during, and subsequently fine him for, his speech given at the parliamentary session of 17   May 2021. On 21 May 2021 the Speaker decided to reduce the applicant’s remuneration in the amount of four times of his monthly salary, equalling to a total of 9,686,400 Hungarian forints (approximately 25,000 euros), for using blatantly offensive language when calling members of the governing party “dandies” ( ficsúrok ) in his parliamentary speech. Subsequently, the applicant unsuccessfully challenged the decision before the Immunity Committee and the plenary Parliament. The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention that the impugned measures breached his right to freedom of expression as a Member of Parliament. He further complains that there was no effective remedy available to him to challenge the impugned measure, in breach of Article 13 read in conjunction with Article 10 of the Convention.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention, by the imposition of a fine on him, in particular having regard to his role as an elected member of Parliament participating in debates of public interest and scrutinising decisions of the Government? 2.     If so, was that interference prescribed by law, did it pursue a legitimate aim and was it necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2 (see Karácsony and Others v. Hungary [GC], nos. 42461/13 and 44357/13, §§ 137-47, 17 May 2016)? In particular, were the reasons adduced by the national authorities to justify the amount of the fine relevant and sufficient ( ibid ., § 148) and was the measure accompanied by effective and adequate procedural safeguards ( ibid ., §§ 151 and 156-57)? 3.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective remedy for the alleged violation of his freedom of expression, as required by Article 13 read in conjunction with Article 10 of the Convention (see Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000-XI)?